When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, companies scrambled to cut ties in solidarity and to avoid complicity in war. Ethics briefly trumped profit as many packed up and left. Claas did not. The German agri-giant kept its Krasnodar plant humming and its Moscow office open while much of the world turned away. Cummins claims it paused direct Russian operations in March 2022, yet continued supplying engines to Claas elsewhere – and once Claas stayed put, that partnership became a liability, not cover.
Factory in the Line of Fire
Claas opened its Krasnodar site in 2005 and sank €120 million into expansion by 2015. By June 2025, the plant remains active with over 2,000 staff still labouring under a regime facing global condemnation. Russian law now obliges companies operating there to assist military mobilisation efforts – delivering summons, providing logistics and information – under Article 9 of Federal Law No.31-FZ. Under Germany’s Supply Chain Due Diligence Act, Claas must analyse and report on human-rights and conflict-related risks throughout its supply chain. Operating amid war without clear public disclosure is like cooking on a volatile stove – reputational blazes and legal exposure loom large. Customers shouldn’t shrug this off – pressing Claas for transparency is part of proper due diligence, not optional.
Engines of Shadow
Across many markets, Claas fits Cummins Stage V and IIIA engines in combines and tractors. Whether those engines power machines assembled in Krasnodar is officially unknown – but that uncertainty corrodes trust. Cummins officially suspended direct Russian ops in March 2022, yet its engines kept flowing into Claas supply lines even after Claas doubled down on Russia. The question isn’t merely technical – it’s ethical: why maintain partnerships when a partner opts to operate in a war zone? Silence from Cummins becomes complicit by association. Demanding answers from Cummins is not optional – it’s mandatory for anyone claiming ethical procurement.
Demand Clarity or Assume Complicity
A combine built in Harsewinkel may share engine specs with one rolling off the Krasnodar line—mere likeness unsettles ethical buyers. If Claas won’t confirm or deny engine origins, customers must assume complicity until proven otherwise. Buyers need to ask Claas point-blank where parts come from and log any equivocation. They must also ask Cummins if any supply links indirectly support conflict-zone operations – public reticence is itself a signal. In boardrooms, procurement and risk teams should pose this unambiguous question: “Will you stake brand trust on silence?” If clarity isn’t forthcoming, shifting to suppliers with transparent stances isn’t caution – it’s survival.
The Wider Harvest of Doubt
Claas claims to feed global food supplies – yet feeding fields amid war smacks of compromise. Cummins may argue engines are generic commodities – but continuing business ties to a firm entrenched in Russia drags its name into shadows. Investors and partners must probe both companies: public queries on engine flows and supply-chain audits force transparency or expose evasions. Silence fans suspicion; each unanswered query deepens doubt. Ethical stakeholders will pressure for documented provenance, lodge data requests under applicable laws, and escalate any gaps up the chain. In today’s accountability climate, doubt alone can devastate reputations.
Accountability in Action
Noting risks isn’t enough – customers must act as they buy. Writing to Claas and Cummins, demanding explicit statements on parts origin and Russia ties, transforms passivity into pressure. Under Germany’s Supply Chain Due Diligence Act, Claas is legally required to analyse and report human-rights and conflict-related risks; Cummins faces reputational risk by association if it continues ties without transparency. Filing formal information requests under applicable laws can unearth hidden links. Monitoring independent audits or supply-chain disclosures under Germany’s and the EU’s due-diligence frameworks means refusing vague assurances. If uncertainty persists, moving to suppliers untainted by conflict-zone operations is not extra cost – it’s a statement. Sharing findings within stakeholder networks amplifies the call for transparency. In this game, clarity is the shield; ignorance is the rust that kills trust.
Lee Thompson – Founder, The Cummins Accoutability Project
TCAP has approached Claas and Cummins for comment and will publish any response.
Footnotes & Sources
- Claas operations in Russia – Krasnodar plant active
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claas#Krasnodar,_Russia - Cummins pause of direct Russian operations & continued supply to Claas (March 2022 statement).
https://www.cummins.com/news/releases/2022/03/18/update-cummins-business-russia - Russian Federal Law No. 31-FZ Article 9 (Partial Mobilisation) – obligations on companies to assist military mobilisation.
https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/russia-new-law-obliges-multinational-cos-to-assist-with-war-mobilization/ - Germany’s Supply Chain Due Diligence Act (LkSG) obligations – requirement to analyse and report human-rights and conflict-related risks.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germanys-struggle-clean-up-its-supply-chains-has-lessons-europe-2024-04-30/ - Claas product portfolio – Cummins-powered engines (Stage V/IIIA).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claas#Product_portfolio